Originally named in memory of Lady Powerscourt, one of the 'Chief Women among the Brethren,' this is simply a place for me to collect stray thoughts about the Bible, women, the Brethren, Bible translation, manuscripts, writing systems, movies, books....

Calvin and the intrusive pronoun

If anyone does not provide for his relatives,and especially for his immediate family,he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Three masculine pronouns give the average English reader the notion that this verse is addressed to men. However, in the Greek there are no masculine pronouns, and only one masculine plural ending. Not an indication of a male only subject.

But I have listened to two sermons lately where the preacher just assumed that the original Greek was addressed to men.

First, Mark Driscoll says that this is the perfect memory verse for men. And here is what he said in his sermon on 1 Tim. 5:1-16 at minutes 36-38,

If you men don’t take care of your family you are worse than a pagan. … We don’t have any member in the church who is married and is a mother who works outside of the home.

And in another sermon, a more egalitarian preacher said that, although this verse was originally addressed to men, women can provide also. Both of these seminary educated men, who believe they have the credentials to interpret the scripture for their congregation, have misunderstood the Greek.

So, what did Calvin write about this verse?

Erasmus has translated it, “If any woman do not provide for her own,” making it apply exclusively to females. But I prefer to view it as a general statement; for it is customary with Paul, even when he is treating of some particular subject, to deduce arguments from general principles, and, on the other hand, to draw from particular statements a universal doctrine. And certainly it will have greater weight, if it apply both to men and to women.

6 comments:

Nathan
said...

Where do people come up with these ideas? The context is very clearly not focused on males! It is about caring for widows, which is first and foremost a family obligation, not the church's. The church steps in when family cannot. Proof-texting goes awry yet again. Context is so important.

Verse 16 says, "if any man or woman has dependent widows, let them first provide for them, that the church may not be burdened."

This gives a pretty clear indication that the context is about the able-bodied providing for their elderly family members-- not about men having to be the sole breadwinners for their wives and children.

"We don’t have any member in the church who is married and is a mother who works outside of the home."

I've heard of families living under the burden of not 'allowing' wives to work, who are struggling horribly to make ends meet.

It reminds me of similar struggles when Christians are told they have to give 10% of their gross income to their home church, and if they do that God will cover their needs. Many poorer families barely have enough to cover family expenses without giving. If my recollection is correct, under the Levitical Priesthood the poor were not expected to tithe. Rather part of the tithe was dispensed to them under the direction of the Levites.

I doubt that very much. No doubt he just said what I have quoted here in passing without actually checking on the facts. But I am dismayed that a preacher would express an attitude that is so likely to cause a decline in the birthrate, if not in this generation, then in the next one.